Today in BC it's no longer a criminal offence to possess some drugs
January 31, 2023 10:39 AM   Subscribe

Possession of small amounts of certain illicit drugs by people aged 18 and over is no longer a criminal offense in BC.

Today is the start of a three-year pilot project by the Canadian federal government, which grants the province of British Columbia (BC) an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in certain scenarios.

Under this exemption up to 2.5 grams of some drugs can be possessed including cocaine (crack and powder), MDMA, methamphetamine, and opioids (including heroin, fentanyl and morphine).

It is hoped that this decriminalization will be one approach to addressing the current crisis of toxic drugs in BC.
posted by narcissus_and_ambrosia (25 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite
 
This is progress and absolutely necessary, given the public health crisis caused by opiates in BC right now. This is going to save lives.

It's still a halfway house though. Decriminalisation doesn't take the profits out of the drugs trade. Prescribed opiates ("safer supply") is also part of BC's response and that does cut flows of money to criminal networks.

We need a properly regulated and legal supply of drugs, coz if we don't then we get an unregulated market and all the "War on Drugs" bullshit and carnage that has caused for the past four decades.
posted by happyinmotion at 11:11 AM on January 31, 2023 [15 favorites]


2.5g is a lot of fentanyl!
posted by ryanrs at 11:20 AM on January 31, 2023 [9 favorites]


I agree with decriminalization, but I don't think I understand the mechanisms behind decriminalization improving outcomes (other than removing the carceral element further disrupting peoples' lives). Can someone help explain that?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:32 AM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]


Yeah, without safe supply (and a whole bunch of other interventions, including things like "housing first," free and easy to OPS sites, naloxone, and opioid agonists), decriminalization is only one step in a larger series of them.


Canada’s Drug Crisis Has a Solution. Politicians Don’t Like It.
[Foreign Affairs, September 2019]:

Sometimes calculating the human impact of policy decisions can be hard. Research takes time. Making sense of the data, and the noise around it, is a laborious process, and even years of research can culminate in couched, hedged, and caveated conclusions, if you come to a clear conclusion at all.

Which is why the conclusion of a recent study was so striking. It found that a trio of policies adopted to combat the opioid overdose epidemic saved, combined, an estimated 3,030 lives in the Canadian province of British Columbia alone, between April 2016 and December 2017.

The findings, published in June in the peer-reviewed journal Addiction, are a ringing endorsement of the policies adopted by the government of the province hit hardest by the epidemic: promoting access to the overdose-reversing drug naloxone, expanding access to supervised consumption or injection sites, and providing access to treatment known as opioid agonist therapy.

The clear evidence of their success has come amid a federal election in Canada, spurring those concerned over the ongoing crisis to push for more.

Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart has challenged the party leaders vying for seats in Parliament to step up and endorse policies that would allow groups to obtain and distribute safer opioids to users, in hopes of supplanting contaminated drugs from the streets.


The findings referred to above are from "Modelling the combined impact of interventions in averting deaths during a synthetic-opioid overdose epidemic":

Findings: Between April 2016 and December 2017, BC observed 2177 overdose deaths (77% fentanyl-detected). During the same period, an estimated 3030 (2900-3240) death events were averted by all interventions combined. In isolation, 1580 (1480-1740) were averted by take-home naloxone, 230 (160-350) by overdose prevention services and 590 (510-720) were averted by opioid agonist therapy.

Conclusions: A combined intervention approach has been effective in averting overdose deaths during British Columbia's opioid overdose crisis in the period since declaration of a public health emergency (April 2016-December 2017). However, the absolute numbers of overdose deaths have not changed.


So, yeah. Half-assing it like this instead of going all-in runs the risk of yielding data that says "Oh, this didn't work!":

On Monday, Carolyn Bennett, the federal minister of mental health and addictions, said the government plans to collect data on health, criminal justice interactions, public safety and other indicators throughout the next three years. That information will eventually be available to the public through an online dashboard updated quarterly, she said.

Which may be the end game, who knows. "Status quo, but we're claiming we tried" is a very Liberal Party of Canada policy posture.

While people who know what they're talking about will tell you that safe supply needs to be secured. That means steps well beyond this one.

BC's upcoming illicit drug exemption is not decriminalization: The planned policy will not reduce the harms caused by criminalizing drug users:

Police will not be measuring drugs with a device, but have been trained to recognize what 2.5 grams looks like, says Chief Mike Serr of the Abbotsford Police Department and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police drug advisory committee. He said he was not aware of any police agency issuing scales to officers due to practicality and safety concerns.

Serr adds , “You can’t be doing it in an open-air setting where wind and other things …can potentially cause [fentanyl and other toxic substances] to be blowing into the air and impact people in [the] surrounding area.” He also expressed his view that a police car is not an ideal spot to open packaged drugs. To be clear: incidental contact with fentanyl does not cause adverse effects.


Cue a rash of body cam footage of cops in BC rolling around on the ground claiming they've OD'd on fentanyl because they looked at a bag of it.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:33 AM on January 31, 2023 [17 favorites]


BuddhaInABucket - I don't think I understand the mechanisms behind decriminalization improving outcome

Decriminalisation means people who use drugs don't have to hide their use. So if that use is a problem then it's easier for them to get help.

Decriminalisation means people are less shamed and stigmatised for using drugs. So it's easier for them to ask for help.

Decriminalisation makes it easier to treat drugs as a health issue not a criminal issue. Who would you rather have helping you? A police officer with a gun? Or a doctor?

Decriminalisation keeps people out of prison for possession. This keeps people in jobs, in schools, with their families and their communities.

This saves a shit-tonne of money that would otherwise go into incarceration. This money can now be used for more effective services in the community.

This saves a shit-tonne of police time that could now go into addressing violent crime.

2.5g is a lot of fentanyl!

Yeah. 2.5g MDMA is 25 doses, so personal supply (kind of). 2.5g fentanyl is 2,500 doses, so not personal supply. Except BC fentanyl is never pure, so that's fewer doses. I understand that the 2.5 grams refers to the amount of active ingredient, not the total weight of a mix that someone might be carrying. So if someone has 2.5 grams of fent mixed with 99% filler, then they might have a bag of white powder that weighs 250 grams overall. Which is going to be a nightmare for Police to understand and enforce.
posted by happyinmotion at 11:48 AM on January 31, 2023 [11 favorites]


Not just violent crime but, well, things like traffic enforcement. Given that vehicular incidents cause more “potential years lost” here than anything except overdose and cancer it’s kind of a big deal.
posted by mce at 11:52 AM on January 31, 2023


Seems like a good start. I hope that it works, and at the very least fewer people are arrested and punished for their use of drugs. It's beyond inhumane to put a person in jail/prison and saddle them with criminal penalties/records for addictions.

Removing the profit motive from those drugs has to be the next step, though.
posted by jzb at 12:09 PM on January 31, 2023


This seems very positive. I am sure there will be a lot of "the sky is falling!" criticisms, just like there was here when weed started to get legalized, but I am hopeful that more and more places will learn from what works and adapt it, moving us away from a strictly carceral response to drug use.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:32 PM on January 31, 2023


What bothers me most about the argument that jail/prison is a solution to the drug problem is that drugs are in the prisons. It seems like most, maybe all, of the carceral-minded people I've ever met, are completely unaware of this.
posted by house-goblin at 12:36 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]


2.5g is a lot of fentanyl!

The 2.5 gram limit is actually way too low. The province originally asked for a 4.5 gram limit based on evidence from drug users, then lowered the limit based on input from cops.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 12:43 PM on January 31, 2023 [5 favorites]


> It's beyond inhumane to put a person in jail/prison and saddle them with criminal penalties/records for addictions.

Especially given that it's only certain people with certain addictions who wind up in prison.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:43 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]


I understand that the 2.5 grams refers to the amount of active ingredient, not the total weight of a mix that someone might be carrying.

I can’t find anything definitive, but I think it may be the latter, given that cops are supposed to eyeball it in the field.
posted by zamboni at 12:54 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]


> 2.5g is a lot of fentanyl!

It will turn out to be "2.5g of a substance containing $X," where $X is cocaine, meth, heroin, fentanyl, etc.

Because yes 2.5g of pure fentanyl is not a supply for a user, it's a Geneva Convention violation.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:51 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]


I would also assume that “2.5g of fentanyl” means “2.5g of fentanyl product” - either explicitly or with the assumption that this would be the practical implication regardless of what the law says, because it’s the way cops usually do it anyway, and because it would be particularly impossible to distinguish the actual concentration of fentanyl on the field.

Because yes 2.5g of pure fentanyl is not a supply for a user, it's a Geneva Convention violation.

The standard conversion puts 2.5g of pure fentanyl as the equivalent of around 250g of morphine - a quarter of a kilo. Individual use quantity, no, but WMD quantity, definitely no. There are more potent opioids out there than “classic” fentanyl of course but let’s not get to exaggerating.
posted by atoxyl at 2:25 PM on January 31, 2023


Actually I think that’s an oral morphine equivalent. Morphine is about 3x as potent when injected and heroin… debated, but somewhere around 1.5x that. So 2.5g fentanyl ~= 50-60g straight dope.
posted by atoxyl at 2:33 PM on January 31, 2023


It will turn out to be "2.5g of a substance containing $X," where $X is cocaine, meth, heroin, fentanyl, etc.

May also contain benzos, which aren't covered under this decriminalization regime.

As Decriminalization Begins in British Columbia, Activists Watch Warily:

For a long time, harm reductionists and groups of people who use drugs have criticized the development and structure of BC’s decriminalization model. And now that it’s taken effect, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) is among those planning to watch closely how it plays out in practice.

Filter has previously covered numerous issues raised with the plan. The threshold of 2.5 grams is simply too low to reflect the quantities that many people will carry—a consequence, advocates note, of giving police a major say in the decision but not people who use drugs. Decriminalization will apply to four drug types, but not others—like unregulated benzodiazepines, for example, despite the prevalence of “benzodope.” The exclusion of youth from the policy, the notion of police giving health referrals, and the potential for police to simply disregard the policy are among other concerns.

Dave Hamm, a VANDU board member, told Filter that the low threshold—considering how people go out to buy larger amounts to get a price break, or to limit the number of purchases they make—could result in people being criminalized more than before, if police increasingly target people who exceed the limit.

“So, we’re just telling people to be careful,” Hamm said.

He does not believe that the provincial government will raise the threshold during the three-year period, despite VANDU’s and other harm reduction organizations’ urging. So besides monitoring the situation on the ground, the group is taking steps to help people navigate the policy as it now stands.

posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:51 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]


Why aren't benzos covered?
posted by PinkMoose at 3:55 PM on January 31, 2023 [1 favorite]


Also doesn't cover xylazine or nitazenes. Xylazine ("tranq") overdoses don't respond to naloxone treatment. Nitazenes can be more potent than fentanyl and can't be detected by fentanyl test strips.

So we're now at the point in this opiate epidemic that we're hoping that the people who wanted heroin actually have nothing worse than fentanyl.
posted by happyinmotion at 4:26 PM on January 31, 2023 [4 favorites]


We need a safe supply. Period. This is good but doesn't stop people dying.
posted by lookoutbelow at 4:32 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]


Benzos not being covered is a problem, as a large amount of drug use in Vancouver's downtown eastside (the neighbourhood I imagine this project is largely intended to aid) has shifted from fent-based down to benzos-based down. Finding it laughable that cops are supposed to eyeball the difference between 2.5 and 3g of whatever illicit substance and decide whether or not to jail someone based on that.

As far as what decriminalizing will actually look like, yesterday morning I walked past a man visibly smoking crack sitting at a bus stop in the DTES. There was a police car stopped at a red light in front of him and the officers gave him a glance and drove on. It is kind of status quo down here already and like others say, doesn't really do much to address the large issue of tainted drugs killing people.

I know of a 16-year-old on the DTES who is a drug user and unhoused. To keep them out of the DTES, and therefore away from drugs, the VPD has issued what amounts to a restraining order against them. I forget the legal term but it means that if this young person is seen within three blocks of the downtown eastside they are able to be scooped up by the VPD and arrested. The thinking being that jail is less harmful to a 16-year-old than drugs are.

Meanwhile, harm reduction workers I know who know this kid have said that after each 2 or 3 night stint, the kid obviously comes back to the DTES, and each time is measurably worse. More violent, belligerent, scared, reckless, and so on. Not really sure what this has to do with decriminalization but it's one of the many horrible stories that are constantly being written in the epicentre of Canada's opioid crisis.

I wish I could share your optimism, happyinmotion, that decriminalization will in any way meaningfully destigmatize drug use or equate with a transfer of public funds towards harm reduction.
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 4:51 PM on January 31, 2023 [7 favorites]


Which is going to be a nightmare for Police to understand and enforce.

You know, I am trying to envision how a new, more lenient policy that police will have a fuzzy understanding of will be enforced.

Oh wait, I think I know.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:31 PM on January 31, 2023 [3 favorites]


I live in Vancouver and work for the BC Government. The government treats their employees with substance use issues like disposable garbage. Evidence free assessments, costly treatments, and incredibly unethical addictions specialists who all own substance testing companies.
I got caught up in this because of my drinking, which I never did at work, so, when I see announcements like this the hypocrisy is stunning. I agree with it but it should go much further. My mother worked in the court system in BC and after her retirement in the mid '90s she used to say that all of should be made legal. At least this a step in the right direction.
Going through rehab was an eye opener; and it really hammered home how useless and depraved the law and order approach to addiction is. It's prohibitively expensive, it criminalizes people with severe health issues, and we end up with a system where cops become the sole resource in dealing with addiction in so many instances.
And, finally, I refer to it as the Addictions Industrial Complex. So many people making bank of this harmful and ludicrous system we have here. Nothing will really change until it's dismantled and all the bad actors profiting from it are removed.
Anyways, very tired, somewhat rambling here, but I just felt I had to say something. Hopefully this will be the start of something good happening.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 8:37 PM on January 31, 2023 [10 favorites]


I agree with decriminalization, but I don't think I understand the mechanisms behind decriminalization improving outcomes (other than removing the carceral element further disrupting peoples' lives). Can someone help explain that?

Among other things, it means that people will no longer hesitate to call an ambulance for someone who has accidentally overdosed, for fear that the person who has overdosed, or other people at the location, will be arrested/jailed.

So this will save lives.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 10:38 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]


This is a good step.

I've never used recreational drugs (I don't even drink alcohol), but I have worked for the Health Department around harm minimisation programs and gone to conferences featuring talks by world leading experts in minimising the health harms caused by drugs.

As far as I'm concerned, the law/Police should only play a very limited role in drug use:

- selling to people under 18 should be an offense;

- deliberately adulterating and then selling a drug in a way that makes it unsafe to consume (eg people who cut drugs using unsafe fillers) should be an offense;

- misrepresenting the drugs that someone is selling should be an offense eg people selling amphetamines telling their customers that it is ecstasy;

- smoking marijuana in an enclosed space where other people can't get away, like a public train or a public bus should be an offense;

- putting a drug into someone's food or drink without their knowledge and explicit consent should be an offense.

Otherwise, non-violent possession of drugs and non-violent use of drugs should not be a matter for Police.

(I'm okay with people who have caused serious car accidents or been physically violent while on drugs being prohibited from using drugs as a condition of bail/parole.)
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 10:46 PM on January 31, 2023 [2 favorites]


Decriminalization: the opioid addiction situation is literally intolerable: the State must do something to change the status quo. And Decriminalization is Something. So it gets done.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:38 AM on February 1, 2023


« Older The Stink A   |   10 PRINT "YADA YADA YADA" / 20 GOTO 10 / RUN Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments